So you're saying the reason you're not a criminal now is because you are afraid of the risks? And if the perceived risks were mitigated you would have no problem embarking on a life of crime. Doesn't your baby jesus have something to say about that?

On an unrelated note, I find it amusing that you guys (gun nuts) are bold enough to interpret and discuss the second amendment, but can't seem to tell the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. Meh, maybe it's just me.

So you're saying the reason you're not a criminal now is because you are afraid of the risks? And if the perceived risks were mitigated you would have no problem embarking on a life of crime. Doesn't your baby jesus have something to say about that?

On an unrelated note, I find it amusing that you guys (gun nuts) are bold enough to interpret and discuss the second amendment, but can't seem to tell the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. Meh, maybe it's just me.

I was speaking in jest, pointing out that a low-risk deterrent is no deterrent at all. It's called sarcasm.

On an unrelated note... it is just you.

Define assault rifle. You throw out these terms that are so broad as to allow anything to be defined as, well, anything. Like when the AWB was in effect... a 20 round magazine for a .22 rifle was BANNED because it was a "high capacity"- as if a 22 rimfire is an "assault weapon." So go ahead, give me a definition of "assault weapon" - you're just throwing around some term you have heard in the media hysteria. You seem to be in the camp of people who want guns banned because they "look mean" rather than because of their functional qualities. Besides, the AWB did little to nothing to the crime rate when it WAS in force. Again, criminals don't obey the law.

Now, define hunting rifle. Tell me what exactly is "approved" in your sight for taking game. I know plenty of people who hunt with AR-15s, Mini-14s, and Mini-30 rifles. These are functionally NO DIFFERENT than your, (gasp!) "ASSAULT RIFLES." You see, a "hunting rifle" to you is called a "sniper rifle" when those need to be taken too. Isn't that tidy?

You anti-gunners have done so well in controlling the MSM language that almost everything is a "high powered rifle" and an "assault weapon." People who know what they are talking about, and are not just trying to scare people, know the blatant dishonesty involved in using these terms.

Jubelum, Let's do make average people easier targets for criminals. Lets do it. Seriously.Because if we did it, average people would also be safer and lose their lives a lot less often. A happy trade, in my opinion. You see, that's the "bigger picture" you refuse to understand.

"... deserve neither liberty nor security."

Sorry, most of us are not giving up our guns for your utopian "common good" argument. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. Guns save lives. My life, specifically. The people that want to attack you, tonton, are not going to be the least bit deterred by all your feel-good legislation and bans. You guys keep assuming that guns are going to be just as unavailable to the criminals as they are to regular people, and that ain't the case. It's totally illogical.

The "bigger picture" is that you have not seen a REAL crime wave in the US. Disarm all the law-abiding people and you will. You seem to be OK with having even more mass shootings, because now, everywhere will be a gun-free zone. Gun free zones like Columbine, Peducah, VTech, the Long Island Railroad, etc. You know, victim disarmament zones. Sitting duck zones.

You are not going to get rid of guns. Not in 100 years if you banned them tomorrow. And about your interest in sacrificing lives of law-abiding victims for your unreachable utopia... that sounds more like Stalin than rational thinking.

My professional life is, at times, governed by the ability to use deadly force. There are people like that in the world... who actually do lawful trades that can get them killed by the criminal element. Without a means of protection, I would be afraid to go to work in the morning.

So yes, be thankful that your profession is apparently safe, however smugly you come across.
And do the rest of us a favor and stop advocating that we be denied a means of self-defense.

Define assault rifle. You throw out these terms that are so broad as to allow anything to be defined as, well, anything. Like when the AWB was in effect... a 20 round magazine for a .22 rifle was BANNED because it was a "high capacity"- as if a 22 rimfire is an "assault weapon." So go ahead, give me a definition of "assault weapon" - you're just throwing around some term you have heard in the media hysteria. You seem to be in the camp of people who want guns banned because they "look mean" rather than because of their functional qualities. Besides, the AWB did little to nothing to the crime rate when it WAS in force. Again, criminals don't obey the law.

Now, define hunting rifle. Tell me what exactly is "approved" in your sight for taking game. I know plenty of people who hunt with AR-15s, Mini-14s, and Mini-30 rifles. These are functionally NO DIFFERENT than your, (gasp!) "ASSAULT RIFLES." You see, a "hunting rifle" to you is called a "sniper rifle" when those need to be taken too. Isn't that tidy?

You anti-gunners have done so well in controlling the MSM language that almost everything is a "high powered rifle" and an "assault weapon." People who know what they are talking about, and are not just trying to scare people, know the blatant dishonesty involved in using these terms.

It's not that hard. An assault rifle is a rifle that was designed specifically for military use in combat.

The AR15 is an assault weapon both by the U.S. legal definition and by intrinsic design. I'm not sure why people would want to hunt with one because there are cheaper and better suited weapons for hunting. I think the only reason people own these is because they either a) feel bad ass running around with an Army gun, or b) intend on engaging in combat.

I'm not sure what your sniper rifle claim is about because I've never heard the term used in the media. An example of a sniper rifle that doesn't belong in civilian hands is the SR25.

You say these weapons are functionally no different from hunting rifles so I ask you, why doesn't the military save some time and energy and arm soldiers with off the shelf hunting rifles, M1s, or M14s that we still have lying around (some soldiers would welcome the reintroduction of the M14).

And do the rest of us a favor and stop advocating that we be denied a means of self-defense.

I could say: Do us a favor and stop advocating that we be denied a safe country.

Actually, no, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine, a RIGHT brought to us by the Constitution you are so fond of. Trying to deny me of my right to express myself cripples your efforts to express your opinion on other rights.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

I could say: Do us a favor and stop advocating that we be denied a safe country.

Actually, no, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine, a RIGHT brought to us by the Constitution you are so fond of. Trying to deny me of my right to express myself cripples your efforts to express your opinion on other rights.

Deny you a right?

I'm not trying to deny you a right to anything... just requesting that you think about the end effect of your position- creating more helpless victims while psychos and criminals kill unabated by worthless gun laws. And, I might add, if your speech right or any other right IS really is abridged by someone, what the hell are you going to do about it without the means to defend those rights? Sign a petition? Make a picket sign? Hold a vigil?

"A safe country" will not be brought about by taking self-defense arms away from good people who obey misguided laws. I'll say again, a gun-free zone should be "safe" if the presence of guns is the problem. Notice how that's the best place to find a shooting spree?

It's not that hard. An assault rifle is a rifle that was designed specifically for military use in combat.

The AR15 is an assault weapon both by the U.S. legal definition and by intrinsic design. I'm not sure why people would want to hunt with one because there are cheaper and better suited weapons for hunting. I think the only reason people own these is because they either a) feel bad ass running around with an Army gun, or b) intend on engaging in combat.

I'm not sure what your sniper rifle claim is about because I've never heard the term used in the media. An example of a sniper rifle that doesn't belong in civilian hands is the SR25.

You say these weapons are functionally no different from hunting rifles so I ask you, why doesn't the military save some time and energy and arm soldiers with off the shelf hunting rifles, M1s, or M14s that we still have lying around (some soldiers would welcome the reintroduction of the M14).

Ahhh... the "why would you want to?" defense. It's called choice, and those semi-autos you keep calling "assault weapons" are used daily by hunters all over the country for all types of game. The SR25 and its cousins are well suited for handling dangerous game, in situations where a bolt-action would put lives in danger.

The military does not arm itself today with "off the shelf" guns from the gun shop that are available to civilians. They are modified into true assault weapons, capable of sustained fire, full automatic fire, et al.

Quote:

The term "Assault Weapon" as used by the military refers to everything from flamethrowers to shoulder fired wall breaching rounds - all used to aid in an assault. Assault rifles used by the military are capable of full automatic or burst fire to lay down enough fire to aid in an assault. Applying the term "Assault" to a semi-automatic weapon which does not have a rate of fire needed to aid in an assault is inappropriate and non-descriptive. By giving certain semi-automatic weapons this label many were confused and thought that they were military fully automatic weapons.

An assault rifle is not just suitable for combat, it's selective fire. Full auto and/or burst capability. It's a long established definition. For background, the wikipedia article on assault rifles is pretty nice.

"Assault weapon" seems to be an obscure US legal term, so I'm not gonna comment on that.

Hunting rifle is a rifle suitable for hunting.

All assault rifles, as well as the semiautomatics that have similar appearance, are hunting rifles. Try as you might, you can't make a rifle using standard ammunition that is good for combat but not good for hunting animals close to human in size.

Also, there is almost no difference between the average "sniper rifle" and traditional bolt action hunting rifles. If I went to the store to pick up a new hunting rifle, it would be better in every way for hunting or combat than the rifle I used in what limited sniper training I got in the Army. I'd really like to hear what you think is the defining factor here. Color?

You say the SR25 (had to google what this is) shouldn't be in civilian ownership. From that it would seem you think there are criminals who can do more damage with a SR25 than they can with a top end hunting rifle. Let's say they can take a shot every three seconds with semi-auto, every four seconds with bolt action. I can't see the significance.

I haven't been to a rifle range in half a year, but let me sight in a good hunting rifle and I'll deliver bullets reliably to 500m in low wind conditions. I'm not that good of a rifleman. A great shooter with a good hi-powered rifle will go over 1km, and we're still talking about hardware sold, bought and marketed solely for hunting.

When's the last time you heard of crime committed with rifle, just 100m distance or over? The hardware is available, and you need precious little skill to shoot to, say, 200m using a cheap optical sight on any cheap rifle. Fact is, the criminals just aren't interested. They don't want long range rifles. If they aren't interested in an easily acquired hunting rifle, it's dead certain they aren't interested in a rare, slow to acquire $10k sniper rifle. (That's what you'll pay for a top end sniper with optics and some related gear.)

An assault rifle is not just suitable for combat, it's selective fire. Full auto and/or burst capability. It's a long established definition. For background, the wikipedia article on assault rifles is pretty nice.

When considering how to describe a rifle (aside from the U.S. legal definition) I think we should consider for what purpose the rifle was designed.

Do we need to be able to fire from behind cover, exposing little or possible none of our self?

A pistol grip is very useful in this regard.

Does the rifle need to be used in close quarters with other people, does it need to be used indoors?

A collapsable butt stock and short barrel facilitate this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gon

Hunting rifle is a rifle suitable for hunting.

All assault rifles, as well as the semiautomatics that have similar appearance, are hunting rifles. Try as you might, you can't make a rifle using standard ammunition that is good for combat but not good for hunting animals close to human in size.

Right, and there are better rifles for hunting, available for cheaper than a decent assault rifle. So, why do people buy assault rifles and use them for hunting? Just for fun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gon

Also, there is almost no difference between the average "sniper rifle" and traditional bolt action hunting rifles. If I went to the store to pick up a new hunting rifle, it would be better in every way for hunting or combat than the rifle I used in what limited sniper training I got in the Army. I'd really like to hear what you think is the defining factor here. Color?

You say the SR25 (had to google what this is) shouldn't be in civilian ownership. From that it would seem you think there are criminals who can do more damage with a SR25 than they can with a top end hunting rifle. Let's say they can take a shot every three seconds with semi-auto, every four seconds with bolt action. I can't see the significance.

Right, I've never heard of people advocating the ban of sniper rifles, or any other such thing. It was in response to Jub's criticism of the main stream media and how they've become unhinged or something.

The SR25 is a very nice weapon. I think at 300-400 meters you could take a fair few more shots then one every 3 seconds. I'd say at least one a second. I agree that criminals probably aren't interested in these weapons.

That being said, neither should a civilian. LOL @ saving lives when hunting dangerous game. You probably shouldn't be "hunting" that bear if you need a semi automatic military grade sniper rifle to do it. Besides, an SR25 is chambered for 7.62, I'd have imagined you'd want something heavier for a bear.

Gon, I don't think civilians have a legitimate need for military style weapons and I find it amusing how the second amendment can be plain as day, but they can't seem to tell the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle (which I'm sure even a kid could tell by looking at them).

Aslan... pardon me, but I have to give you mad props for regurgitating every bit of gun-ban hysteria that I have heard for the last 10 years.

One thing you cannot deny is that these (bullshit ignorant use of the term) "assault weapons" are used in less than 1-3% of crimes in the United States. Criminals simply do not prefer or even use them at a rate relative to their percentage of total guns. Look at the stats...

"Military style" You don't like these guns because they "look mean." Otherwise, I'd say that you want to ban ALL semi-autos on the basis that they could be used as "assault weapons." A Mini-30 "sporter" will kill just as many people as one with an eeeevil pistol grip. Ditto for bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. The AWB did not do a damn thing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Quote:

According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle." In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle." FBI, "Crime in the United States," 1994, p. 18. Matt L. Rodriguez, Superintendent of Police for the City of Chicago, 1993 Murder Analysis at 12, 13.

PS- I don't "hunt bear." I fish in the same streams that bears do. And BTW, "legitimate need" is not a prerequisite for exercising rights.

Aslan... pardon me, but I have to give you mad props for regurgitating every bit of gun-ban hysteria that I have heard for the last 10 years.

One thing you cannot deny is that these (bullshit ignorant use of the term) "assault weapons" are used in less than 1-3% of crimes in the United States. Criminals simply do not prefer or even use them at a rate relative to their percentage of total guns. Look at the stats...

"Military style" You don't like these guns because they "look mean." Otherwise, I'd say that you want to ban ALL semi-autos on the basis that they could be used as "assault weapons." A Mini-30 "sporter" will kill just as many people as one with an eeeevil pistol grip. Ditto for bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. The AWB did not do a damn thing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

PS- I don't "hunt bear." I fish in the same streams that bears do. And BTW, "legitimate need" is not a prerequisite for exercising rights.

If you recall from the beginning of this thread...

My position is that guns should be banned and your rights should be repealed.

Sheesh, you lot have more right to carry a gun than I have to drive a car or drink a beer. I'd like to see an "open carry" law enacted for beer now that I think of it.

I am against gun culture and IMO the availability of assault weapons contribute to that.

My position is that guns should be banned and your rights should be repealed.

Sheesh, you lot have more right to carry a gun than I have to drive a car or drink a beer. I'd like to see an "open carry" law enacted for beer now that I think of it.

I am against gun culture and IMO the availability of assault weapons contribute to that.

I think the rights that matter to you should be repealed, too. You don't have a legitimate need to free speech. You don't have a legitimate need for privacy. You should have to worship in a State church. You don't need rights to a legal system. In fact, let's just get rid of the entire Bill of Rights. That's what it is about right? Taking rights from others and keeping your own safe? Well, buster, that RKBA means as much to me as any of the other laws in this country. It means having a livelihood, free from fear of being helpless and victimized. What do YOU do for a living? Spend a week behind my counter and see how your tone changes. The RKBA, in fact the whole BoR, are not rights given by government that can be taken away. They are inherent and enumerated. You cannot take what you did not give in the first place.

From my cold, dead hands indeed.

And you exaggerating about the car/beer thing. It's a lot harder to get a CHL than to do either of those things...

You are entitled to your fascist position on guns. Your position will cost a lot of innocent people their lives if it ever is tried in practice. On behalf of many gun rights activists, I say a hearty THANK YOU. We need people like you spouting about repealing the RKBA... it does wonders on the membership rolls and at the polling places. And so many on this board wonder why gun owners are highly suspicious about the intent of anti-gun "common sense" people. It always ends in the same thing- take em all away.

When considering how to describe a rifle (aside from the U.S. legal definition) I think we should consider for what purpose the rifle was designed.

Do we need to be able to fire from behind cover, exposing little or possible none of our self?

A pistol grip is very useful in this regard.

Does the rifle need to be used in close quarters with other people, does it need to be used indoors?

A collapsable butt stock and short barrel facilitate this.

Some of that I agree with, some of it I don't. However the term "assault rifle" has the specific meaning of selective fire, combat-designed rifle. Since you want to group together rifles that look like military rifles in general, why not call them "military-style rifles" or "fighting rifles" or something you deem fit that doesn't already carry a well-established meaning?

Assault rifles are available only in some US states, and always require a federally licensed collector (background, mental health checks, the works), and large fees to purchase.

Quote:

Right, and there are better rifles for hunting, available for cheaper than a decent assault rifle. So, why do people buy assault rifles and use them for hunting? Just for fun?

Again, not "assault rifles", see above. But in answer to your question about military-style weapons:

1) Just for fun? Some folks, certainly. Anything wrong with that? I'm under the impression that hunting is recreation. As long as you and your weapon have enough stopping power and accuracy, animals won't care. Some folks hunt with bows, which are surely not "better" from any practical standpoint. Some buy expensive hunting rifles, even if a cheaper one would handle the "job" just as well. Different people have affinity with different kinds of gear, and different wallet thickness.
2) Hunting might not be the only thing people want to do with the rifle. Shooting sports, self defense, practising a skill for your current or future job, even being in the army reserve and having sworn a related oath are all pretty rational reasons to own a firearm.
3) Many people are used to one weapon, know it well, have a familiar place to go for maintenance and parts, etc. Other things being equal, people go for what they know, and for a good reason.

Quote:

Right, I've never heard of people advocating the ban of sniper rifles, or any other such thing. It was in response to Jub's criticism of the main stream media and how they've become unhinged or something.

I've heard people advocating ban of sniper rifles before, actually. And it would seem that the ban on "military style weapons" that you advocate is wider and inclusive of a ban of sniper rifles?

Quote:

The SR25 is a very nice weapon. I think at 300-400 meters you could take a fair few more shots then one every 3 seconds. I'd say at least one a second. I agree that criminals probably aren't interested in these weapons.

That being said, neither should a civilian. LOL @ saving lives when hunting dangerous game. You probably shouldn't be "hunting" that bear if you need a semi automatic military grade sniper rifle to do it. Besides, an SR25 is chambered for 7.62, I'd have imagined you'd want something heavier for a bear.

Gon, I don't think civilians have a legitimate need for military style weapons and I find it amusing how the second amendment can be plain as day, but they can't seem to tell the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle (which I'm sure even a kid could tell by looking at them).

I think people shouldn't have to present "needs" for owning things in general. I don't have to present a "need" for buying a Ferrari, which is surely a dangerous thing if driven to its limit on a public road. If you want something restricted or banned, the onus is on you to first show it's actually causing, going to cause or very likely to cause significant damage. Then we can talk. But you already admitted criminals probably have no interest in a SR25. Why are you still advocating that it be banned from hobbyists who want to own and/or shoot one?

It means having a livelihood, free from fear of being helpless and victimized. What do YOU do for a living? Spend a week behind my counter and see how your tone changes. The RKBA, in fact the whole BoR, are not rights given by government that can be taken away. They are inherent and enumerated. You cannot take what you did not give in the first place.

You couldn't look more scared if you tried. But that's okay. I understand, and you'll notice that twice in this thread I've conceded that there should be concessions for people who might have a legitimate need for protection. Gemstone dealers could be one, banks could be another, I'm sure there's a few others.

The point is I don't think you have a RIGHT to bear arms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gon

Some of that I agree with, some of it I don't. However the term "assault rifle" has the specific meaning of selective fire, combat-designed rifle. Since you want to group together rifles that look like military rifles in general, why not call them "military-style rifles" or "fighting rifles" or something you deem fit that doesn't already carry a well-established meaning?

Fair enough, military style weapons it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gon

2) Hunting might not be the only thing people want to do with the rifle. Shooting sports, self defense, practising a skill for your current or future job, even being in the army reserve and having sworn a related oath are all pretty rational reasons to own a firearm.

Self defense is a terrible reason to own a firearm, it's even more likely to be used against you in some fashion, either by accident or some other mishap.

I also happen to be a member of the Army Reserve. It's not required that we own our own guns or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gon

I don't have to present a "need" for buying a Ferrari, which is surely a dangerous thing if driven to its limit on a public road. If you want something restricted or banned, the onus is on you to first show it's actually causing, going to cause or very likely to cause significant damage. Then we can talk. But you already admitted criminals probably have no interest in a SR25. Why are you still advocating that it be banned from hobbyists who want to own and/or shoot one?

After the guns are taken away, I'm sure there could be concessions made for enthusiasts like there is in Australia. It just means there's more red tape, security checks, accountability, that sort of thing.

---

Regarding the article MacRR posted, is there any reason to suggest that article is true? I'm beginning to think these gun clubs keep their members in a perpetual state of fear.

Regarding the article MacRR posted, is there any reason to suggest that article is true? I'm beginning to think these gun clubs keep their members in a perpetual state of fear.

Nope... misguided @#$&* like you keep us in a perpetual state of fear. Fear that our fellow citizens want us to have NO OPTION to protect ourselves from criminal threat. Well, to hell with all that. My gun keeps me and my family safe at home and at work. You want us to surrender that safety because of some Stalinist "you have no RIGHTS" argument. We have the right, have had the right for 200+ years, and will always have the right, regardless of how you sleep at night because your utopia is not in place.

I'm not afraid of the criminal element BECAUSE I CAN DEFEND MYSELF, and sod off for the "couldn't look more scared" taunting. I work my ass off to provide for my family in a dangerous job, and you throw out some shit like that. If you get your way, I will be wide open to robbery and being killed, as will my co-workers and family members. It sucks having to fight the criminals AND people like you who want to take away our only means of defense. I will not ask your permission for what I am entitled to. Period.

No one should have to play the bureaucrat "mother may I" concession game to have the means to protect ourselves. That is absurd from the inception. Who decides? Sarah Brady? Charlton Heston? Give me a break. It's just another feel-good way to smooth over disarming law abiding people. They have that system in Kahleepornia, and look at what it is- NO ONE can get a permit without EXTREME circumstances.

Self defense is a terrible reason to own a firearm, it's even more likely to be used against you in some fashion, either by accident or some other mishap.

Honestly, I consider catching a bullet from my own firearm in an accident to be on level with getting hit by lightning and winning the lottery. There are these things called firearm safety rules. I obey them. Should my weapon sometime go off by accident (has happened; a faulty PKM machine gun, my personal weapon at the time, went off when I chambered a round from the belt) it will be pointing in a direction without people. Other people, that is. You'd have to be something of a moron or be using an unsafe method of carry to have a chance of shooting yourself.

When it comes to using a firearm in self defense, it's just absurd to suggest that I would come out of a fight in better shape by going in empty handed than with an effective weapon. So absurd, in fact, that I have probably misunderstood your comment in some way?

Quote:

I also happen to be a member of the Army Reserve. It's not required that we own our own guns or anything.

Like practically every male in my country, I've sworn an oath to keep up my military skills. It's not "required that we own our own guns or anything" either, but realistically that keeping up of skills doesn't happen without owning a firearm to practice with. Our defense rests entirely on the shoulders of the reserve. Worst case, there's a crisis and I'm called in to do quick refresh training on a 30 man rifle platoon and lead them to fight in a week or a month. Should any of that ever happen, I'd thank the heavens for every guy I could get who has regular shooting practice behind his belt.

When it comes to using a firearm in self defense, it's just absurd to suggest that I would come out of a fight in better shape by going in empty handed than with an effective weapon. So absurd, in fact, that I have probably misunderstood your comment in some way?

There are many fight scenarios outside of a warzone in which having a firearm could greatly increase the risk of injury to you, your adversary or an innocent bystander, regardless of your level of training. There are times when the injury could be far greater than if no firearm were present and the scenario could have been successfully prosecuted. Being a trained professional military person who may one day lead other into battle or to deal with other crisis situations, you should be aware of that.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

There are many fight scenarios outside of a warzone in which having a firearm could greatly increase the risk of injury to you, your adversary or an innocent bystander, regardless of your level of training. There are times when the injury could be far greater than if no firearm were present and the scenario could have been successfully prosecuted.

... but you refuse to see that there are times when a firearm can keep people SAFE or PREVENT INJURY to others. If someone would have had a gun at VTech, fewer people would have died. If someone is being stabbed or assaulted in the street, I can put a stop to it. If I am robbed or worse, I can interfere for the better, not just the worse as you continually claim.

... but you refuse to see that there are times when a firearm can keep people SAFE or PREVENT INJURY to others. If someone would have had a gun at VTech, fewer people would have died. If someone is being stabbed or assaulted in the street, I can put a stop to it. If I am robbed or worse, I can interfere for the better, not just the worse as you continually claim.

Can you not see the other side at all?

I can see it. But I think its completely retarded. College campuses house massive drinking and drugging parties; this is a facet of our culture that is, imo, more important than the rkba. It is an inevitable and undeniable circumstance that if you increase the guns on campus, drunk assholes will gain access to them and shoot people [accidentally, or intentionally]. The defamed asshole at the head of the justice department agrees that more guns on campus is not the answer.

... but you refuse to see that there are times when a firearm can keep people SAFE or PREVENT INJURY to others. If someone would have had a gun at VTech, fewer people would have died. If someone is being stabbed or assaulted in the street, I can put a stop to it. If I am robbed or worse, I can interfere for the better, not just the worse as you continually claim.

Can you not see the other side at all?

The only thing more ludicrous than the idea that if we banned guns we would be safer is the idea that if everyone had guns we would be safer.